JUDGMENT This writ application has been filed against an order dated August 22, 2003 (Dolat Electric Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer, Ezra Street Charge [2005] 141 STC 282 (WBTT)) passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") holding that the resistance stainless steel wire (hereinafter referred to as "the said goods") is not declared goods falling under sub-item (xv) of item (iv) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1956 Act") on which tax was payable at the rate of four per cent. By the said order the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to reopen the assessment for the four quarters ended on March 31, 1999 under section 46A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1994 Act") to assess sales of the said goods under the residuary entry as goods not elsewhere specified attracting higher rate of tax at twelve per cent. Facts revealed that the petitioners imported the said goods from China containing higher chromium and aluminium content. The said goods were assessed by the customs authorities under Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, dealing with iron and steel goods, heading 72.23 as "wire of stainless steel". Accordingly, import duty was levied thereon. The petitioners realised four per cent sales tax applicable to the declared goods on sale of the said goods from its buyers. The assessment was deemed to have been made by the authority for the fourth quarter ended March 31, 1999 under section 46A of the 1994 Act accepting the returns filed on the basis that the said goods are declared goods liable to be assessed at the rate of four per cent. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, reopened the said assessment by an order dated September 20, 2001 on the ground that the goods could not be treated as declared goods and thereby are liable to be assessed under residuary head attracting the higher rate of tax at twelve per cent. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, reopened the said assessment by an order dated September 20, 2001 on the ground that the goods could not be treated as declared goods and thereby are liable to be assessed under residuary head attracting the higher rate of tax at twelve per cent. Further the case of the petitioners is that in the case of a sister concern of the petitioner, which had also imported the said goods an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, on December 6, 2001 holding that the said goods were declared goods and there is no reason to reopen the deemed assessment made in his case under the 1994 Act and in that case, it was held that the said goods were declared goods attracting four per cent tax. Being aggrieved by the order so passed by the said authority, the petitioner filed an application before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated August 22, 2003 ([2005] 141 STC 282 (WBTT)). The only issue involved is whether the order of the Tribunal holding the said goods are not declared goods falling under item (iv), sub-item (xv) of section 14 of the 1956 Act and thereby attracts residuary entry assessable at the rate of twelve per cent is sustainable in law. Mr. The only issue involved is whether the order of the Tribunal holding the said goods are not declared goods falling under item (iv), sub-item (xv) of section 14 of the 1956 Act and thereby attracts residuary entry assessable at the rate of twelve per cent is sustainable in law. Mr. Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, drew our attention to serial No. 1 of Schedule VII to the 1994 Act which is reproduced hereunder : "Goods referred to in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), excluding those specified in any other Schedule." He also drew our attention to section 14 of the 1956 Act which is as follows : "(iv) iron and steel, that is to say, - (i) pig iron, sponge iron and cast iron including ingot moulds, bottom plates, iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap; (ii) steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets of all qualities, shapes and sizes); (iii) skelp bars, tin bars, sheet bars, hoe-bars and sleeper bars; (iv) steel bars (rounds, rods, squares, flats, octagons and hexagons, plain and ribbed or twisted, in coil form as well as straight lengths); (v) steel Structurals (angles, joists, channels, tees, sheet piling sections, Z sections or any other rolled sections); (vi) sheets, hoops, strips and skelp, both black and galvanized, hot and cold rolled, plain and corrugated, in all qualities, in straight lengths and in coil form, as rolled and in riveted condition; (vii) plates both plain and chequered in all qualities; (viii) discs, rings, forgings and steel castings; (ix) tools, alloy and special steels of any of the above categories; (x) steel melting scrap in all forms including steel skull, turnings and borings; (xi) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths, including tube fittings; (xii) tin-plates, both hot dipped and electrolytic and tinfree plates; (xiii) fish plate bars, bearing plate bars, crossing sleeper bars, fish plates, bearing plates, crossing sleepers and pressed steel sleepers, rail-heavy and light crane rails; (xiv) wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets; (xv) wire rods and wires-rolled, drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as by copper; (xvi) defectives, rejects, cuttings or end pieces of any of the above categories." He further drew our attention to serial No. 10 of Schedule IX to the 1994 Act which is reproduced hereunder : "10. All other goods not specified in this Schedule or in any other Schedule." He also contended that since the said goods being the declared goods under section 14 of the 1956 Act, its sales are assessable at the rate of four per cent under serial No. 1 of Schedule VII to the 1994 Act and therefore, the question of assessing the said sale at the rate of twelve per cent under residuary item 10 of Schedule IX of the 1994 Act cannot arise at all. Mr. Bajoria further submitted that the principles as "to the determination of the classification of the goods under the tariff entries for levy of tax have been settled by the Supreme Court in its various decisions". According to him, when the Revenue wants to treat the goods as assessable under an item other than that claimed by the assessee, the onus and/or burden of proof lies on the Revenue and such burden has to be discharged by the Revenue by adducing adequate materials in support of its assertion and he relied upon the decision of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in [1997] 106 STC 214; [1997] 2 SCC 677 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows : "4. It is not in dispute before us, as it cannot be, that the onus of establishing that the said rings fell within item 22F lay upon the Revenue. The Revenue led no evidence. The onus was not discharged. Assuming therefore, that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence that was produced on behalf of the appellants, the appeal should, nonetheless, have been allowed." He further relied upon a decision of Nanya Imports & Exports Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in [2006] 197 ELT 154, where the apex court held as follows : "... The burden of proof as to whether the item in question is taxable in the manner claimed by the Revenue is on the Revenue. Mere assertion in that regard is of no use. ... The burden was on the Revenue to prove that the said goods were not 'sheets' for which no evidence whatsoever was led by the Tribunal. ..." Mr. Bajoria also drew our attention to a decision H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in [2006] 197 ELT 324 where the Supreme Court held as follows : "29. ... The burden was on the Revenue to prove that the said goods were not 'sheets' for which no evidence whatsoever was led by the Tribunal. ..." Mr. Bajoria also drew our attention to a decision H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in [2006] 197 ELT 324 where the Supreme Court held as follows : "29. This apart, classification of goods is a matter relating to Chargeability and the burden of proof is squarely upon the Revenue. If the Department intends to classify the goods under a particular heading or sub-heading different from that claimed by the assessee, the Department has to adduce proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof. In the present case the said burden has not been discharged at all by the Revenue. ... The Department has not shown that the subject-product is not bought or sold or is not known or is dealt with in the market as denatured salt. ... 30. It has been held by this court in number of judgments that burden of proof is on the Revenue in the matter of classification. In Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. [1996] 10 SCC 413, in para 15, this court held as under : 15. In our view, the conclusion reached by the High Court is fully in accord with the decisions of this court and the same is justified in law. The burden of proof is on the taxing authorities to show that the particular case or item in question is taxable in the manner claimed by them. Mere assertion in that regard is of no avail. It has been held by this court that there should be material to enter appropriate finding in that regard and the material may be either oral or documentary. It is for the taxing authority to lay evidence in that behalf even before the first adjudicating authority. ...' 31. Similarly, in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1997] 106 STC 214 (SC); [1997] 2 SCC 677, it is held in para 4 as under : It is not in dispute before us, as it cannot be, that the onus of establishing that the said rings fell within item 22F lay upon the Revenue. The Revenue led no evidence. The onus was not discharged. The Revenue led no evidence. The onus was not discharged. Assuming therefore, that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence that was produced on behalf of the appellants, the appeal should, nonetheless, have been allowed'." He further relied upon a decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Vicco Laboratories reported in [2005] 4 RC 687; [2005] 179 ELT 17, where the Supreme Court held as follows : "7. This court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works reported in [2003] 132 STC 251 (SC); [2003] 1 RC 323; [2003] 5 SCC 60, has also disapproved the approach of the Department in holding that the product was a cosmetic only because it was not sold by chemists or under doctors' prescription. This, according to the decision, does not by itself lead to the conclusion that it is not a medicament. The court reaffirmed the test as categorically laid down in Shree Baidyanath [1996] 9 SCC 402, namely, that the burden of proof that a product is classifiable under a particular tariff head is on the Revenue and must be discharged by proving that it is so understood by the consumers of the product or in common parlance. ..." Mr. Bajoria further contended that the resort to the residuary item for classification of the goods can only be taken if the goods cannot conceivably fall within any specific item and in support of his such contention he relied upon a decision Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, Gujarat reported in [1992] 84 STC 414; [1990] 1 SCC 532, where the apex court held as follows : "The question before us is whether the Department is right in claiming that the items in question are dutiable under tariff entry 68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary entry. In other words, unless the Department can establish that the goods in question can by no conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item. We do not think this has been done. In other words, unless the Department can establish that the goods in question can by no conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item. We do not think this has been done. ..." He further drew our attention to a decision Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Maharshi Ayurveda Corporation Ltd. reported in [2006] 6 RC 13; [2006] 193 ELT 10, where the Supreme Court held as under : "17. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P.) Ltd. [1992] 84 STC 414; [1990] 1 SCC 532; [1990] 45 ELT 525 (SC) a three-judge Bench of this court held that if a product cannot be brought under the specific entries in the Tariff Act only then resort can be made to a residuary entry. It was held in para 3 as under : 3. The question before us is whether the Department is right in claiming that the items in question are dutiable under tariff entry No. 68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary entry. In other words, unless the Department can establish that the goods in question can by no conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item.' 18. To the same effect is the judgment in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. AIR 1991 SC 1028 ; [1991] Supp 1 SCC 125. It was observed in para 16 as under : 16. One more aspect of the issue should be adverted to before we conclude. The assessee is relying upon a specific entry in the tariff schedule while the Department seeks to bring the goods to charge under the residuary item No. 68. It is a settled principle that unless the Department can establish that the goods in question can, by no conceivable process of reasoning, be brought under any of the specific items mentioned in the tariff, resort cannot be had to the residuary item : See Bharat Forge case [1992] 84 STC 414; [1990] 1 SCC 532; [1990] 45 ELT 525 (SC). This certainly is not the position in this case, particularly in the light of the Department's own understanding and interpretation of item 26AA.'" He further pointed out that the description of a particular product with reference to its use does not alter or change it or make it a different commercial product and it retains its original characteristics and has to be classified accordingly. The end-use, whether as a raw material or otherwise, is not determinative of the classification of the goods. In support of such contention he relied upon a decision Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1992] 84 STC 414 (SC); [1990] 1 SCC 532; [1990] 45 ELT 525 (SC), where it was held as follows : "... In order to achieve fully the purpose for which the pipes and tubes are manufactured, it is necessary to manufacture smaller pieces of pipes and tubes and also to manufacture them in such a shape that they may be able to conduct liquids and gases, passing them through and across angles, turnings, corners and curves are regulating their flow in the manner required. Smaller pieces of pipes and tubes differently shaped are manufactured for this purpose. They are merely intended as accessories or supplements to the larger pipes and tubes. They are pipes and tubes made out of pipes and tubes. There is no change in their basic physical properties and there is no change in their end-use. There is no reason why these smaller articles cannot also be described as pipes and tubes. 5. But, it is said, they are known in the market differently as pipe fittings, a totally different commercial commodity. The expression 'pipe fittings' merely denotes that it is a pipe or tube of a particular length, size or shape. 'Pipe fittings' do not cease to be pipes and tubes; they are only a species thereof. This aspect of the matter can be illustrated by the decision of this court in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India [1987] 64 STC 180; [1985] 3 SCC 284. In that case the question was whether 'properzi rods' manufactured and cleared by the assessee fell within entry 27(a)(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944). In that case the question was whether 'properzi rods' manufactured and cleared by the assessee fell within entry 27(a)(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944). That entry read as follows : 'Aluminium - (a) wire bars, wire roads and castings, not otherwise specified.' It was contended, on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, that, commercially, properzi rods are not known as wire rods in the trade and that a person wanting to purchase properzi rods asks specifically for properzi rods and not for wire rods. Reliance was also placed on the view taken by this court that words and expressions describing an article in a tariff Schedule should be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer. The court held the properzi rods were only a species of wire rods. ... It is true that all pipes and tubes cannot be described as pipe fittings. But it would not be correct to say that pipe fittings are not pipes and tubes. They are only a species of pipes and tubes. ..." He further relied upon a decision J.P. Rings Limited v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal reported in [2007] 5 VST 476, where the Madras High Court held as follows : "The fact that the goods are polished and buyer has used the steel rings supplied by the petitioner as piston ring or oil engine ring does not in any way alter the basic fact that what is supplied by the petitioner is in fact a steel ring. As held by the apex court the State Legislature has no authority to prescribe a higher rate of tax on declared goods by changing the description of those goods. As held by the apex court the State Legislature has no authority to prescribe a higher rate of tax on declared goods by changing the description of those goods. Article 286(3) of the Constitution obligates the States to be bound by the declaration made by Parliament regarding the goods which are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, as also the restrictions and conditions including the ceiling on rates, at which States may levy tax on such declared goods." In the said decision, the Madras High Court relied on the several decisions of the Supreme Court which are summarized herein below : (a) In the case of Dewan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1996] 102 STC 67, the Supreme Court held that the rim of a cycle was a part of the wheel and hence fell under sub-item (xiv) of item (iv) of section 14 of the 1956 Act. (b) In the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1991 SC 1028 , the Supreme Court held that poles supplied to Telephone and Telegraph Departments were pipes and tubes and declared goods under section 14 of the 1956 Act rejecting the contention that poles were different commercial commodities. It was held as under : "The statement that they are commercially distinct commodities is merely based on their being called 'poles'. They are also available in the same market in which normally pipes and tubes are otherwise available. It was held as under : "The statement that they are commercially distinct commodities is merely based on their being called 'poles'. They are also available in the same market in which normally pipes and tubes are otherwise available. Neither the circumstance that certain processes are applied to the 'mother' pipes or tubes nor the fact that, in order to identify the particular type of tube or pipe one needs, one may use different names is sufficient to treat the article as a commercially different commodity." (c) In the case of Tube Investments of India Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Group III, Enforcement I, Greams Road, Chennai reported in [2003] 129 STC 238, the Madras High Court held that "'exhaust pipes' supplied by the assessee to Ashok Leyland Limited, a manufacturer of trucks, are steel tubes within the meaning of declared goods falling under the Second Schedule, item 4(xi), of the TNGST Act and that the fact that the buyer has used the steel tube supplied by the petitioner as part of chassis/engine by fitting it into such engine/chassis, for use as exhaust pipe, does not in any way alter the basic fact that what is supplied by the petitioner is in fact a steel tube of certain shape and length. ..." Relying on those decisions and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court he submitted that the Department has failed to produce any evidence on behalf of the Revenue in support of their contention that the goods are to be classified under the residuary entry and are declared goods. On the contrary, the petitioner had adduced evidence by way of invoices of the foreign suppliers, the bills of entry of the customs authority assessing import duties and its own invoices showing that the goods were assessed and dealt with as wire of stainless steel and tax was realized by the petitioner as declared goods. He further submitted that before the Tribunal he relied upon a decision of the sales tax authorities of Delhi treating the said goods as declared goods. He further submitted that before the Tribunal he relied upon a decision of the sales tax authorities of Delhi treating the said goods as declared goods. He also relied upon the case of the sister concern of the present petitioner before the authority and further relied physical and chemical composition and characteristics of the said goods, glossary of terms relating to iron and steel published by the Bureau of Indian standards and various ISI specifications and other literature to show that the said goods were stainless steel wire irrespective of its being used, inter alia, for making resistance articles. He also relied upon the decisions of Hindustan Wires Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1992] 86 STC 1 (Mad) as well as State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC) in support of his contention. Mr. Bajoria submitted that the Tribunal ignored all such evidences and materials produced by the petitioner and no plausible opinion has been expressed by the Tribunal and erroneously proceeded to treat the said goods which were resistance stainless steel wire as if they were stainless steel wire resistance. Mr. Bajoria submitted that the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the word "resistance" without taking any note of that expression "stainless steel wire" and thereby reached in a conclusion that the said goods were not stainless steel wire. The Tribunal held that since the goods were mainly used for resistance purpose, the same were not declared goods, ignoring all the evidence put forward before the Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal was entirely erroneous and contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court came to such finding. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the onus was on the Revenue to show that the said goods were not declared goods but it had not submitted any evidence in support of its contention. In these circumstances, he submitted that the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside and it is held that the said goods as declared goods at the rate of four per cent and are not residuary entry at the rate of twelve per cent. On the contrary, Mrs. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that it is the case of the petitioner that the stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance are identical goods. On the contrary, Mrs. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that it is the case of the petitioner that the stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance are identical goods. She submitted that on the chemical and physical properties of stainless steel wire resistance, the melting point of this material is low and is therefore, used in electrical circuit to ensure that the stainless steel wire resistance melts first When the circuit is heated and this ensures the safety of the circuit. She further pointed out that the Legislature does not classify commodities on the basis of scientific or technical reasons. She further drew our attention to Schedule IX of the Act and submitted that the existence of Schedule IX precludes any doubt about the rate of taxation of stainless steel wire resistance. She further pointed out that the petitioners themselves filed their returns for the period of 1997-98 treating the stainless steel wire resistance as a commodity mentioned in Schedule IX of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 which is liable to tax under section 17(1)(h) of the said Act. But subsequent thereto, for the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner has made out a new case that stainless steel wire resistance was an item enumerated in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and she further contended that the stainless steel wire resistance as declared goods. Therefore, admittedly the petitioners themselves earlier took a plea that the stainless steel wire resistance is not a declared goods and after an order the petitioner now tried to make out a new case making a plea that the stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance are identical. She further pointed out that the stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance cannot be a species in the bunch of declared goods. Accordingly, she submitted that the import of the word "resistance" is very important. The said goods are used mainly for the purpose of resistance. Functions of stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance are totally different. Therefore, she submitted that the said decision cannot be a help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case and she submitted that the Tribunal correctly assessed the facts and came to the conclusion and there is no illegality in respect of the order so passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, she submitted that the said decision cannot be a help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case and she submitted that the Tribunal correctly assessed the facts and came to the conclusion and there is no illegality in respect of the order so passed by the Tribunal. Hence, she submitted that the application should be dismissed. After considering the facts of the case and after analysing the decisions cited before us, it appears to us that in "Hindustan Wires Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1992] 86 STC 1" the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the expression "iron and steel" covers alloy steel as well as stainless steel apart from non-alloy steel. The expression "that is to say" is the commencement of an ancillary clause which explains the meaning of the principal clause. Whatever meaning is given to the main item must be given to all the sub-items. Therefore, on a plain construction of "iron and steel" mentioned in the main item in entry 4(xv) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it includes all kinds of steel like non-alloy steel and alloy steel, as well as stainless steel. If "iron and steel" occurring in the main item includes non-alloy steel and alloy steel including stainless steel, the same meaning must be given to all the sub-items including sub-items (xi) and (xv) also. A sub-item cannot be construed with the aid of another sub-item, to restrict the scope of one sub-item. For understanding the sub-items, we must look into the main item, and if so done, there is difficulty in holding that stainless steel tubes and stainless steel wires are declared goods. It further appears to us that in section 14 of the 1956 Act it has been stated in item (iv)(xv) that wire rods and wires-rolled, drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as by copper would be treated as a declared goods. Now in this case, it appears to us that the resistance which is also made out of the wire rods or wires-rolled or even put it with coated with copper treating it as a resistance, then there would not be any difficulty to treat the same under the declared goods. In the instant case, it appears to us that even the court held in the said decision as follows: "Para 14. In the instant case, it appears to us that even the court held in the said decision as follows: "Para 14. Our first endeavour will be to find out the meaning to be attached to the words 'iron and steel, that is to say'. We will refer to the meaning given by the Indian Standard (IS : 1956-1962) Glossary of Terms relating to Iron and Steel, which is relevant for our purpose : 2.10. Alloy. - A metallic substance consisting of two or more elements, one of which at least is a metal. It is generally obtained by melting together the constituent elements. 2.12. Alloy steel. - A steel containing one or more alloying elements as a result of which it develops specific characteristics. 2.347. Stainless steel. - An alloy steel containing about twelve per cent or over of chromium with or without nickel together with other elements and is characterized by its high resistance to corrosive media. 3.143. Steel. - An iron-carbon alloy, with carbon chemically combined as iron carbide (Fe 3 C), and contains varying amounts of other elements, some being added intentionally to develop specifically desired properties. The alloy is capable of withstanding a high degree of hot working for making products of a wide variety of shapes and sizes, and even cold working in the form of sheets or small diameter rounds of suitable composition. 4.63. Rod (wire-rod). - A semi-finished hot rolled product of relatively small cross section and very great length produced in coil form for cold-drawing. In rounds the usual range of sizes in which wire rods are produced is from 5 to 14 mm. 6.114. Wire. - The product of a wire-rod whose sectional area has been reduced at normal temperatures either by drawing through a specifically prepared orifice or passing under pressure between suitably driven rolls. 9.125. Skelp. - (a) Hot rolled strip with square or slightly bevelled edges, used for making welded tubes. (b) A strip or place bent hot into a cylindrical shape with overlapping edges, before being welded to form a tube. 9.144. Tube (pipe). - A long, hollow, open-ended object of circular or other cross section. The terms "tube and pipe" are often used synonymously.' Let us also refer to the Glossary of Terms relating to Iron and Steel (IS : 1956-1962. - Amendment No. 1 May, 1965) : Red (wire-rod). 9.144. Tube (pipe). - A long, hollow, open-ended object of circular or other cross section. The terms "tube and pipe" are often used synonymously.' Let us also refer to the Glossary of Terms relating to Iron and Steel (IS : 1956-1962. - Amendment No. 1 May, 1965) : Red (wire-rod). - Wire-rod is of any shape, generally round and between 5 to 14 mm. in diameter, and is intended for conversion into wire. A rod that has been sized would be classified as wire provided it is between 5 to 12.5 mm. in diameter. It will be classified as a cold rolled bar if it is above 12.5 mm. in diameter. The term wire bar is the usual term which has later on come to be designated as wire-rod and hence wire bar and wire-rod are synonyms.' We will now refer to Wire Encyclopaedia (from Wire Industry Year Book 1968) : Stainless steel : High chromium steel, often including nickel, which is resistant to corrosive and oxidizing influences. The best known form of stainless steel is 18.8, an austenitic steel containing about 18 per cent, chromium, eight per cent nickel, the carbon content being kept low. See also entries for stainless steel under "annealing", "welding", and "lubricants". A suitable solution for cleaning 18.8 stainless and similar qualities is 35 per cent hydrochloric acid, five per cent nitric acid, five per cent restrainer and 55 per cent water. See also "chromium oxide scale". Wire-rod : Produced from a steel billet by passing, when hot, through a series of rolls by which it is reduced in cross-sectional area and consequently elongated to form a coil; it is the semi-finished product from which wire is made, and is generally about 5 S.W.G. (0.212 inch) to 9.16 inch diameter. The higher alloy and stainless qualities are rolled in semi-continuous mills, but qualities up to at least 0.50 per cent carbon are regularly rolled in continuous mills, the latest mills having four strands and weekly output of over 7,000 tons, at finishing speeds up to 8,500 ft. min. on 0.212 inch rod; producing coils of 1,000 lb.' We will then refer to Indian Standard - Classification of Steel. The relevant portion for our purpose is as follows : '2. Definition of steel. min. on 0.212 inch rod; producing coils of 1,000 lb.' We will then refer to Indian Standard - Classification of Steel. The relevant portion for our purpose is as follows : '2. Definition of steel. 2.1 For the purpose of classification, steel is an iron base alloy generally suitable for working to the required shape in the solid state having a carbon content generally less than 1.5 per cent and containing varying amounts of other elements. A limited number of high alloyed steels may have more then two per cent carbon but two per cent is the usual dividing, line between steel and cast iron.' 'Classification on the basis of chemical composition. 3.1 Steel shall be classified as follows : (a) Unalloyed steels, and (b) Alloy steels. 3.3. Alloy steels Alloy steels are those steels where specified content of any element is equal to or greater than that indicated in 3.1. Depending on the alloy content (exclusive of S, P, C and N), alloy steels shall be subdivided as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-division Total alloying elements Per cent ------------------------------------------------------------------- Low alloy steels Up to and including 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Medium alloy steels More than 5 but up to and including 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------- High alloy steels More than 10 ...' ------------------------------------------------------------------- Now we will refer to Harmonized Commodity - Description and Coding System (Volume 3, 1986). The relevant portions for our purpose are as follows : (e) Stainless steel Alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 per cent or less of carbon and 10.5 per cent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. (o) Wire Cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross-section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products. (d) High speed steel Alloy steels containing with or without other elements, at least two of the three elements molybdenum, tungsten and vanadium with a combined content by weight of seven per cent or more of carbon and three to six per cent of chromium. Liquid steel obtained by the above mentioned processes, with or without further refining, is generally run into a receiving ladle. At this stage alloying elements or de-oxidising agents, in solid or liquid form, may be added. This may be done in a vacuum to ensure freedom from gaseous impurities. Liquid steel obtained by the above mentioned processes, with or without further refining, is generally run into a receiving ladle. At this stage alloying elements or de-oxidising agents, in solid or liquid form, may be added. This may be done in a vacuum to ensure freedom from gaseous impurities. Steels obtained by all these processes are divided, according to their content of alloying elements, into "non-alloy steels" and "alloy steels" (stainless or other). They are further divided in accordance with their special properties into free-cutting steel, silicon-electrical steel, high speed steel or silicon-manganese steel, for example. Alloy steel. All steels containing carbon and small amounts of silicon, sulphur, manganese and phosphorous. Steels which contain intentional additions of elements other than those or in which silicon and manganese are present in large amounts are termed alloy steels. The alloying elements are deliberately added to produce certain properties in the product. In Government statistics, alloy steel figures relate to steel, other than high-speed steel, containing any of the elements named below and in the quantities indicated : Chromium or nickel 0.4 per cent or more, Mo, W or V.C. one per cent or more, Mn ten per cent or more. Stainless steel. A corrosion-resistant type of alloy steel which contains a minimum of 12 per cent chromium. The latter is the element which confers upon the steel its property of resisting attack by the atmosphere or by a number of chemical reagents. The effect is attributed to the ability of chromium to form a thin, but very tenacious, film of oxide at the surface of the alloy which resists attack by most oxidizing agents. The resistance to corrosive attack is enhanced if nickel be added, and is further improved by small additions of molybdenum and copper. There are three main classes of stainless steels. Wire. A term somewhat difficult to define precisely. It refers to slender rod-like products. The cross-section of a wire is usually circular but not exclusively so. The method of manufacture is to draw wire bars or rods through successively smaller dies. The finer wires are reeled and the heavier wire is generally supplied in coils. The diameter of a wire may be quoted as a fraction of an inch in mm. or may be designated by a gauge number (wire gauge). The lowest gauge in any of the various systems refers to wire approximately 15 mm. The finer wires are reeled and the heavier wire is generally supplied in coils. The diameter of a wire may be quoted as a fraction of an inch in mm. or may be designated by a gauge number (wire gauge). The lowest gauge in any of the various systems refers to wire approximately 15 mm. in diameter, and this may be taken as indicating roughly the upper limit of dimension for wire.' The relevant portion from Central Excise Tariff of India 1991-92 reads as follows : (e) Stainless steel : Alloy steels containing by weight 1.2 per cent or less of carbon and 10.5 per cent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heading No. Sub-heading Description of goods Rate of duty ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 72.23 7223.00 Wire of stainless steel Rs. 2,500 per tonne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Para 15. The Supreme Court, while considering section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, before amendment, dealing with iron and steel, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra reported in [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC), observed as follows : 'What we have inferred above also appears to us to be the significance and effect of the use of words "that is to say" in accordance with their normal connotation and effect. Thus, in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., Vol. 5, at page 2753, we find : "That is to say. - (1) 'that is to say' is the commencement of an ancillary clause which explains the meaning of the principal clause. It has the following properties : (1) it must not be contrary to the principal clause; (2) it must neither increase nor diminish it; (3) but where the principal clause is general in terms it may restrict it. See this explained with many examples, Stukeley v. Butler Hob 171".'" We also cannot brush aside the observation made by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra reported in [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC) where the Supreme Court observed as follows : "It will be seen that 'iron and steel' is now divided into 16 categories which clearly embrace widely different commercial commodities, from mere scrap iron and leftovers of processes of manufacturing to 'wires' and 'wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets'. Some of the enumerated items like 'melting scrap' or 'tool alloys' and 'special steels' could serve as raw material out of which other goods are made and others are definitely varieties of manufactured goods. ..." We find force in the argument made by Mr. Bajoria that a sub-item cannot be construed with the aid of another sub-item and according to us, that cannot be the proper way of understanding as rightly contended by Mr. Bajoria. Therefore, in the instant case, in sub-items, we have to look into the main item and if we do so, then there is no difficulty in holding that stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance are declared goods. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the stainless steel wire and stainless steel wire resistance cannot be treated as a declared goods under section 14(iv)(xv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we allow this application and set aside the order so passed by the Tribunal.